Translating bumblebee dialect…
This is one of 12 scenarios the Centennial Campaign 2027 explores. It is an AI-generated planning artifact, not a forecast or an RMBL institutional commitment. The contingencies it depends on are named in its plausibility-caveats and (where applicable) upside or downside conditions sections. See the browse page for the full set, including the alternative scenarios.
Centennial Stewardship assumes the campaign comes in near the upper end of what RMBL might raise, and that the institution makes a single concentrated bet: protect the basin's longest continuous records through the next fifteen years, above all else. The marmot study passes its seventy-fifth year in 2038. The long meadow phenology series and snowmelt-driven plant work continue without lapse. A small in-house data team grows enough to make a century of accumulated records newly readable. Around all of this, the campaign builds the savings and broader funding base that protect RMBL's independence through funding shocks. About two-thirds of the work is continuity stewardship; the rest serves it. The scenario forgoes new atmospheric instrumentation, broad community co-production work, large mechanistic experiments, and the East River watershed buildout. It asks donors to value continuity over visible expansion — durable protection of a few load-bearing things as a more honest expression of mission than growth.
---
At target magnitude, the campaign's central bet is that protecting the basin's longest continuous records — particularly the marmot study now in its eighth decade, with its seventy-fifth year in 2038 — is the highest- leverage thing RMBL can do in the next fifteen years. Every other investment serves that bet. The scenario asks donors to value continuity over visible expansion: durable protection of a few load-bearing things as a more honest expression of mission.
This scenario takes as its starting assumption that protecting the basin's longest continuous records is the highest-leverage thing RMBL can do in the next fifteen years. The campaign comes in near the upper end of what RMBL might raise. But rather than spreading that capacity across many fronts, the institution concentrates it.
The reason is specific. The marmot study passes its seventy-fifth year in 2038. The meadow phenology series and the snowmelt-driven plant work are entering decades where a single lapse in observation would be irreparable. These records exist because successive generations of guest scientists carried them, supported by a small RMBL technical staff and stewarded archives. They cannot be rebuilt from satellite data or modeled from first principles. Once interrupted, they end.
The scenario chooses to recognize this plainly. Most of the campaign goes to protecting what already exists — the field protocols, the plot infrastructure, the archives, the housing and logistical support, the savings that buffer all of it against the federal funding shocks that are now the operating reality. A smaller share grows RMBL's data team enough to digitize the historical materials and make a century of records readable in ways prior generations could not attempt.
What the scenario forgoes is visible expansion. There is no new atmospheric instrumentation in the watershed, no broad community partnership program, no portfolio of new research directions. The bet is that durable protection of a few load-bearing things is a more honest expression of RMBL's mission than growth would be — and that donors will recognize this when it is named plainly.
The campaign opens by articulating its concentration clearly. RMBL leadership and the board commit publicly to records protection as the central priority, and shape donor conversations around that choice rather than around a broader menu. The early years go to stabilizing the field protocols and plot infrastructure that the long records depend on, and to a first round of data-team hiring — an archivist and a second data scientist join the existing technical core. Digitization of the marmot study's historical records begins in earnest. The federal SAIL campaign winds down in the watershed during this phase, and RMBL chooses not to take on its instrumentation; the scenario accepts that the watershed-as-coupled-testbed will continue through other institutions or not at all. By 2030, the first tranche of campaign savings is in place, sized to cover essential records work through several years of disrupted federal funding.
The data team's work compounds. A century of marmot demographic records, decades of meadow phenology observations, and the long snowmelt-plant series are digitized and made machine-readable. Guest scientists begin to use them in ways that were not possible before — running analyses across the full span of the records, asking questions about decade-to-decade variation that earlier paper-and-spreadsheet methods could not support. RMBL's broader funding base diversifies meaningfully; foundation and individual-donor support grows to a steady share of operations. The board navigates a mid-campaign decision about whether to expand into adjacent priorities as the savings target is met early, and chooses to deepen the records work instead. The marmot study passes its ninety-fifth year of continuous observation. The Gothic field site, the housing system, and the small technical staff operate with the quiet reliability that the records require.
The campaign's consequences settle into place. The records have continued without lapse through a period of significant external strain. The data team is established at its target size — modest by university standards, transformative for what RMBL can offer guest scientists. The marmot study, now in its eighth decade, passes seventy-five years in 2038, and the institution marks the milestone as a public moment that names what has been protected and how. Guest scientists publish syntheses drawing on the now-readable century of records. The broader funding base and savings have held through at least one significant federal funding shock. RMBL's independence — its freedom to keep asking the questions it wants to ask — is materially more secure than it was in 2026. The institution begins to consider what the next horizon asks of it, with the records intact as the foundation any future campaign builds on.
Scientists working on the basin's long-record questions get something specific during this period: stability. The marmot trapping schedule continues, the meadow phenology plots are maintained, the snowmelt-driven plant work has the field support it needs. Archival access to a century of field notebooks, plot maps, and demographic records becomes practical for the first time. Guest scientists can ask questions across the full sweep of the records — questions about decade-to-decade variation, about the deeper history of an unusual year, about patterns only visible at multi-decade scales. What scientists working on adjacent questions do not get is the coupled atmospheric and watershed instrumentation that SAIL provided, or new mechanistic experimental infrastructure. The basin remains a place where long-record ecology can be done at world-class scale, and where some of the questions that long records cannot answer will need to be carried elsewhere.
RMBL through this period feels concentrated rather than expansive. The Gothic field site operates with the quiet reliability that the records require. The small technical staff grows by a few people — an archivist, additional data scientists — focused on making the records durable and readable. The Crested Butte building continues to host the workshop and community functions it currently does, without major renovation. Board conversations turn on whether the concentration is holding — whether the savings target is on track, whether the records are intact, whether the data work is compounding. The institution's identity becomes more clearly tied to long-record stewardship and to the independence that protects it. Working at RMBL during this period means being part of an institution that has chosen depth over breadth and named the choice plainly.
Donors are invited to be part of protecting something that cannot be rebuilt. The basin's longest continuous records — the marmot study now in its eighth decade, the meadow phenology series, the snowmelt-driven plant work — exist because they have been carried forward across generations of scientists and staff. Your contribution joins the conditions that let them continue: the field protocols, the archives, the small technical team, the savings that buffer the work against funding shocks. It joins the effort to make a century of records newly readable through the data team's work. And it joins the broader funding base that protects RMBL's freedom to keep doing this work whatever happens in Washington. The campaign asks you to value continuity over visible expansion — to invest in the durable protection of a few load-bearing things rather than in growth. This is a quieter ask than some campaigns, and a more honest one.
This scenario assumes that RMBL's donor base will respond to a concentrated framing — that enough donors find protecting a few load-bearing things compelling without a broader menu. This is not certain. The Development team's read of the donor base could plausibly show that broader framings raise more, and that the concentration in this scenario would close at a lower magnitude. The scenario also assumes that the guest-scientist community carrying the long records remains intact through the federal funding contraction — that the scientists who would carry the marmot study, the phenology series, and the snowmelt-plant work can keep coming to the basin even as their own grant landscape thins. If that community frays badly enough, RMBL's infrastructure investments cannot substitute. The characteristic failure mode of this scenario is success-by-the-letter and failure-by-the-spirit: RMBL protects the protocols, the archives, and the plot infrastructure, but the scientists who give those things life drift away. A second characteristic failure mode is that concentration becomes rigidity: by 2035, the bet on records protection forecloses adjacent moves that would have served the records' long-term home better than continued concentration. The scenario's structural blind spot is community priorities: it treats the existing Crested Butte building's current scale as adequate and does not invest in deepening community partnership work that §3.2 identifies as more institutionally central than it once was. A reader weighing this scenario should weigh that omission carefully.
---
Speculative. Lower resolution than the primary horizon.
Looking past 2040, the further future is hazier and the framing here is explicitly speculative. The marmot study passes its seventy-fifth year in 2038, and the milestone becomes a public moment that names what RMBL and the basin science community have protected. The data team's work compounds further; guest scientists publish syntheses across a now-readable century of records that prior generations could only have dreamed of. The broader funding base, established through the campaign, carries RMBL through whatever the federal landscape looks like by 2050. The bet RMBL made in 2027 — that durable protection of a few load-bearing things mattered more than visible expansion — settles into the basin's longer arc. RMBL matters in 2050 for the same reason it mattered in 2040: because the century-long records continued without interruption through a constrained period, because the small in-house data team made all of it newly readable, and because the basin remains the rare global asset it has been. Not because expansion happened, but because protection did.
In 2040, RMBL matters because its decades-long records continued without interruption through a constrained period, the marmot study passed its seventy-fifth year intact (with its centennial in 2063 now plausible rather than a hope), and the small in-house data team made all of it newly readable. The basin remains the rare global asset it has been — not because expansion happened, but because protection did.